Section 69A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.104

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 104 (Unexplained asset) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 104 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 69A is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 of the 15,297 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 69A

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

K.P. Varghese v. ITO
131 ITR 597 · 1981 · Supreme Court
989
citing judgments

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.
397 ITR 82 · 2017 · High Court
786
citing judgments

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
91 ITR 18 · 1973 · Supreme Court
666
citing judgments

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

Tin Box Company v. CIT
249 ITR 216 · 2001 · Supreme Court
624
citing judgments

When an issue is remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the AO must conduct a de novo examination and provide the assessee a full opportunity of being heard. The assessee is bound to comply with the notices issued by the AO.

Judgments on Section 69A

Hari Ram Boreda, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 595/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 595/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mr. Hari Ram Boreda, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Secunderabad Of Income Tax, [Pan No. Aeypb4624F] Circle-13(1), Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत् यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri R.C.Chalam & Shri P. Vamshi Krishna Reddy, Ars रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 27/12/2022 आदेश / Order Aggrieved By The Order Dated 31/08/2022 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Hari Ram Boreda (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal. 2. Assessee Is An Individual & Being A Retired Indian Air Force Employee His Source Of Income Is Pension & Interest From Bank. He Was Found To Have Deposited A Sum Of Rs. 13,39,500/- Between 16/11/2016 & 14/12/2016 On Five Occasions In His Account With Vijaya Bank. He Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring An Income Of Rs. 10,34,540/-. On Verification Of The Bank Account, Learned Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Has Been In The Habit Of Withdrawing & Re-Depositing The Amounts In His Account. He Withdrew A Sum Of Rs. 27.5 Lakhs In The Month Of April, 2016 Apart From The Deposits To The Tune Of Rs. 3.95 Lakhs Totaling To A Sum Of Rs. 33.95 Lakhs Out Of Which, He Paid A Sum Of Rs. 33.85 Lakhs To Two Persons.

For Appellant: Shri R.C.Chalam &For Respondent: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, DR
Section 69A

M. Vijayakumar(Rep by His Wife S. Yasodha), Erode vs. ITO, Intnl Taxaton Ward, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 689/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri M. Vijayakumar, The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By His Wife Smt. S.Yasodha, Vs. International Taxation 26, Kuttakkattuvalasu, Elumathur, Ward, Erode – 638 104. Coimbatore. Pan : Ajbpv 0551B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai In Ita No.101/Cit(A)-16/2019-20 Dated 13.07.2022. The Assessment Was Framed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2017-18 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Vide Order Dated 25.12.2019. 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Is As Regard To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Addition Of Rs.8 Lakhs As Unexplained Money U/S.69A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 69A